Teen shot 7 times and killed by police officer - ruled "justified" of course

[Loren Pechtel]

Something happened that cause the messed-up video

Something happened alright, like maybe the camera failed by falling from the officer's body... as was reported in several of the articles about this story. This, by the way explains the blurry images the camera records after tazing. Did the camera start dangling by a wire from the officer's body or did the entire thing start rolling down the embankment? We don't know.

Something posted your message. Was it zorq or a cat walking across the keyboard? We don't know.

(In other words, your scenario makes about as much sense as a coherent post from a cat on the keyboard. We do have some reasonably clear frames and they're not from a camera rolling down the embankment. Furthermore, a camera on the ground won't keep recording variable motion blur.)

Since the obvious intended actions of the cop would not have caused this we need to look for some other explanation--and the only one that makes any sense at all is if Devon got up and attacked at that point.

Well if you had analysed the situation in your first sentence correctly, this one might have more merit. But of course, there still remain several other explanations that fit the evidence, as I had tried to point out to you before.

And your post came from a cat.

 

[zorq]

Something happened alright, like maybe the camera failed by falling from the officer's body... as was reported in several of the articles about this story. This, by the way explains the blurry images the camera records after tazing. Did the camera start dangling by a wire from the officer's body or did the entire thing start rolling down the embankment? We don't know.

Something posted your message. Was it zorq or a cat walking across the keyboard? We don't know.

(In other words, your scenario makes about as much sense as a coherent post from a cat on the keyboard. We do have some reasonably clear frames and they're not from a camera rolling down the embankment. Furthermore, a camera on the ground won't keep recording variable motion blur.)

Since the obvious intended actions of the cop would not have caused this we need to look for some other explanation--and the only one that makes any sense at all is if Devon got up and attacked at that point.

Well if you had analysed the situation in your first sentence correctly, this one might have more merit. But of course, there still remain several other explanations that fit the evidence, as I had tried to point out to you before.

And your post came from a cat.

It's possible for you to speculate that a cat wrote my post, but I'll go ahead and confirm that I wrote the post and that I am a human being. You may speculate that I'm still the cat and that I'm lying, but you may not conclude definitively.

Do you see the difference here in what you do and what I do?

You have a tendency to draw definitive conclusions from non-definitive evidence. Notice how I don't do the same thing. You insist that there is only one explanation for the events of the night Sgt. Frost killed Deven. I say there are many possible explanations. You insist that a cat wrote my post, I suggest that it is only a possibility.

Your preferred version of events is not unlikely, but it is also not confirmed. When you insist that Deven attacked Sgt. Frost. You are wrong only because we don't know for sure. When you insist that Sgt. Frost had no other option but to shoot Deven seven times you are wrong becuase we don't know for sure.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The cop was paranoid or at the very least unreasonable. He ALLEGEDLY thought some 17 year old teenager who was interested in his own constitutional rights but did not completely understand them was in an armed militia group coming to get him. There was no good evidence of that and where we would expect to see evidence of being in a militia, there wasn't any. So his ALLEGED conclusion (assumption really) was unreasonable.

I am skeptical that Sgt Frost actually believed that Deven was in a militia and seems to be saying that just for sake of his legal claim to self-defense. The reason I say that is that as a police officer Sgt Frost would have encountered all kinds of people, including types who are very interested in their constitutional rights...and included within that subset those who make mistakes about them. Sgt Frost had many opportunities to observe Deven's behavior as one of those types and could see he fit neatly into that subset of people.

So to review, Sgt Frost observed no evidence that would link Deven to a militia and he did observe evidence that would categorize Deven along with people interested in their rights.

While this is the likely scenario it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Sgt Frost is probably a hypocrite to lie and rely upon the justice system to protect himself while going after a kid for flashing his high beams at him. Criminal court probably wouldn't go anywhere.

There will be no just outcome for the parents either in civil court. Even though the burden is preponderance of evidence, the framework that it operates in still favors police. In order to demonstrate excessive force they would have to link his unreasonable actions directly to Deven's death. Being once or twice removed is not enough. The fact that there was an escalation of unreasonable and unnecessary actions by the officer will have no impact on culpability in a civil case.

So back to something laughing dog wrote pages ago...maybe he will work a desk job the rest of his life. I am pessimistic. I do not think anyone in the system will tell him he did anything wrong, but it's possible.

Time will tell.